Pages

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Frank Newman: No trust in landowners

Last week commissioners began hearing submissions on what is
the most significant change in Whangarei District Council planning rules in
decades. Alarmingly, few people actually realise the new rules are in the
pipeline. Hardly a word has been mentioned in the media, and the Council itself
did not hold any public meetings to inform the public of the changes.

Ten plan changes are proposed -
affecting every landowner outside of the built up urban environment. The plan
changes divide the rural (countryside) area into seven "Environments"
with "Resource area" overlays, each with their own rules. (Plan
changes PC85, 85A, 85B, 85C, 85D, 86A, 86B. 87, 102, and 114.)

The result will be an unnecessarily restrictive and confusing web
of regulations that will inevitably add uncertainty and significant cost to
anyone wanting to improve their land. There are some aspects of the
proposed plan changes that are heading in the right direction. For example:

·A reduction in permitted subdivision lot sizes
for land
transitioning between the urban and rural environments. This is what the market
is demanding, as is obvious from what is actually occurring.

·Provisions for the introduction of positive
incentives to encourage environmental protection, albeit limited and in general
form. Even if these clauses survive the submission process, I remain sceptical
that such measures would be implemented by council staff who seem more willing
to use the big stick handed to them by councillors than encouragement.

Unfortunately those positive aspects are overwhelmed by the
negatives:

·The further erosion of private property rights
by transferring discretion about what one does on one’s own property from the
property owner to council staff who presume to represent the values of the
community at large. The problem is the low thresholds requiring a property
owner to pay Council so they can go cap in hand and plead their case to a
planner - who no doubt will be all too willing to impose their own world view
on the prostrate individual.

·Much of the coastal area has been zoned Rural
Production, which is so nonsensical that it makes one assume the rule writers have
not spent enough time away from their desks to see what is happening in the
real world. It is more likely that the planners have bought into the
anti-subdivision rhetoric and included the coastal area as Rural Production as
a means to enable a 20ha restriction on subdivision. The minimum lot size is an
absurdity for lifestyle property - too small to be economically viable, but too
large for all but very wealthy landowners to revegetate. Instead they run carbon
omitting animals to subsidise their rates bill, and land that would otherwise
be returned to a bush habit remains in grass. Where's the environmental benefit
in that?

·The plan changes create different rules depending
on who created the effect. In some cases, there are exemptions to the regulations
that apply to general landowners for Maori, utility providers, and for the
council itself. For council to exude itself from the rules it imposes on others
is outrageous.

·Other rules are simply nonsensical, like the
rule to avoid "the use of hard protection structures, such as
seawalls and rock armouring, along with other visible artificial
elements". Like, how else does one create a viable sea wall to stop the global-warming
rising seas without using rocks and other visible elements!

Madness like this is evident throughout the plan, which goes
too far by solving "problems" that are more imaginary than real. But
the what is most disappointing is the underlying assumption that landowners
can't be trusted. This is contrary to the great things landowners have been
doing, and continue to do, to improve the environment. Literally millions of
native trees have been planted in our region in recent years by private
landowners - and the positive effects are plain to see. Instead of recognising
those good deeds, planners, aided by indifferent and pro-regulation
councillors, want to have greater say about what you can and (more importantly)
can't do on your own private property.

Unfortunately the real damage to the community is that good
people will not do good things on their land because their hands, legs and neck
are bound by red tape.

Once the commissioners have heard
from submitters they will present their decision to councillors to rubber
stamp. It is highly likely that the decision will be appealed to the
Environment Court, and yet more money will be wasted on lawyers and consultants arguing over the
placement of commas, and debating the meaning of esoteric notions like "spatial or temporal cumulative adverse effects".

1 comment:

It is a wearying business. At Council and Central level is the determined march towards the overbearing position where everything is forbidden.Unless maybe a zealot decides to give you permission, subject to policy over that of the already destructive burden. Reading this passage by Fank made my eyes glaze over as I remember how so many small operators are forced away from raising land into a economically performing function.The very concept of ownership of property has become socialised and politicized .Here the continuation of the absurd planners artificial boundaries to an extreme.

None of this nightmare will change until New Zealanders form a voting group which is dedicated again to small Government and rescinding the RMA in its entirety.. Yes we had that voting group, we got tired. The machine trampled on, New Zealanders kept a watch on TV, and lightweight Seymour came in to transform it to a libertarian course for yet more social ideals.

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.

Please note - if you use the new REPLY button for comments, please start your comments AFTER the code. Also, the Blogger comment limit is 4,096 characters, so to post something longer, you may wish to use Part 1, Part 2 etc.

Subscribe To

Welcome to Breaking Views

Breaking Views brings you expert commentary on topical political and policy issues. The views expressed are those of the author alone. The blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, an independent public policy think tank at NZCPR.com - register for the free weekly NZCPR newsletterHERE.